We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Why does eating more calories = losing more weight?
Replies
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.
with him! I was just saying that when you said "Moving less is the reason." I just want to point out that this is not the case. His argument is not right in any circumstance.
BMR makes up almost ALL of your TDEE, so even if someone is sedentary, they aren't going to pack on the pounds because they are "eating less" and subsequently being less active.
1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.0 -
I registered to this site last week. It was recommended so I decided to give it a try. It took my profile and decided I needed to eat 1500 calories a day. Well doing that and I'm maintaining my present wt. 1200 a day and I lose. I know, I lost 40 pounds two years ago doing 1200 a day. Anything over it and I gain. So far, I lost 3 and now I'm maintaining my present wt....which isn't what the goal is. I have an additional 77 to go. So I changed the parameters this morning. 1200 cal a day which is enough for me. It also had me on 2800 mg.s of sodium. I won't do that at all. I'm no salt, no sugar....so this is going to be interesting for sure. I figure, if you don't put it in your mouth, it won't show up on the scale.
Are youYou are , what you eat. Remember that quote? If it doesn't go in your mouth, it won't go on your *kitten*? My wife had her teeth out recently and dropped from 156 to 112 pounds in as little as 4 months. When you can't take in nourishment.....you lose.
You may lose that way, but it's not sustainable or healthy. Is your goal to simply lose pounds or to be healthy and fit?0 -
I'm not crash dieting. I've changed the way I eat. I've slowed down. My metabolism is slower , thanks in part to cardiac drugs. I don't know why I'm here either....everyone is telling me what to do...to gain. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You asked a question. They are answering with their opinions. That's how this forum works.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.
with him! I was just saying that when you said "Moving less is the reason." I just want to point out that this is not the case. His argument is not right in any circumstance.
BMR makes up almost ALL of your TDEE, so even if someone is sedentary, they aren't going to pack on the pounds because they are "eating less" and subsequently being less active.
^^^^^THIS^^^^
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
ETA: Also, I addressed weight does not equal fat in a previous comment which you may have missed. Long drawn out explanation of water weight gain. I didn't talk about muscle loss, but I felt like concerning the comment I was replying to, that wasn't pertinent information.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.
Daughter's friend - "I was so embarrassed I literally died."
Me - "So who resuscitated you?"
Daughter's friend = Bewildered.1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
My point is what you are saying is wrong! That's why I replied.
"Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" - just one single example makes that wrong. That's the way it is with absolutes. That's why semantics actually matter, for accuracy.
Your absolute statement is wrong because it is possible to eat more in the short term and have a weight drop.
Example:
Eight week period of very intense training in a 1lb/week deficit produced a steady weight loss as expected for first five weeks and then stalled out.
Stress/cortisol plus classic signs of overtraining syndrome.
Increased calories and lost weight. Water weight. The water retention was masking the fat loss.
That's why I pointed out that weight =/= fat.
Weight and weight fluctuations/stalls are more complex than you seem to believe.
See though, I feel like we STILL agree. Nothing you said here is an opinion I myself don't hold. I will accede to the semantics argument, however unjust I find it in this situation considering how unbelievably out of context you have taken this single statement. I have requested deletion of my former post. Afraid you'll have to wait for the mods.
I think we agree that a true calorie deficit over time will inevitably result in weight loss.
Maybe because I'm English I put a high regard on the language we (sort of...) share.
I think it's probably more of a generational difference. No millennial would think of "never" as extreme. We exist in a universe of extremes so we have a tendency to speak in them at all times, cause saying "I'm dying" is a joke rather than a situation requiring instantaneous action.
ETA: That universe being the internet god help us.
Daughter's friend - "I was so embarrassed I literally died."
Me - "So who resuscitated you?"
Daughter's friend = Bewildered.
HA HA! That's it! A+ Dad humor, you should make a meme:)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions